White House Goes Too Far In Asking Google To Pull Controversial Video

from the there's-this-first-amendment-thing dept

Last week, we reported on Google's decision to block access in Egypt and Libya to the controversial, hate-mongering video that's been cited as leading to the violent reactions in the Middle East. We wondered if this was the right move, noting the seriousness of the violence and the ridiculousness of the video. However, Paul Levy's thoughts on this make sense. While we may worry about what line Google may draw, it is a private company and it's not doing this due to government pressure, but as part of it's own decision:

Its removal is not the same as deferring to government censorship, and as much as I hate to give mob violence the satisfaction of an effective heckler’s veto, we cannot expect that online service providers will never remove material simply because it is deemed offensive by wide swaths of the population. Moreover, I can’t help but wondering if the violent response isn’t just what the film-makers were hoping for. So by leaving the image on its site so that we can understand the controversy, while taking it down where broad access to the material is likely to cause the greatest harm, Google has made a comprehensible judgment.

As such, even if we disagree with the choice, it's a defensible choice.

However, things may have crossed the line late last week. There were reports that the White House strongly suggested that YouTube pull the video entirely. Of course, they didn't come out and say that exactly, but rather suggested that YouTube "review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use."

But when it's the White House suggesting that, it's a pretty clear situation in which the President is applying pressure on a private company to censor speech. Of course, we've seen this before, though not with the White House directly. Four years ago, we saw Senator Joe Lieberman similarly pressure YouTube to start blocking "terrorist" videos on YouTube. Lieberman, of course, loves to pressure private companies into blocking speech. He did similar things to try to censor Wikileaks and even pushed some bad legislation to try to increase censorship powers of the federal government.

Either way, the White House putting pressure on Google has troubling implications, even if we agree that the video in question is a hate-mongering disgrace. As various free speech activists told Politico (link above) there are some troubling implications here:

"There's no indication that the government is questioning the right of these idiots to make that repellent film. On the other hand, it does make us nervous when the government throws its weight behind any requests for censorship," the American Civil Liberties Union's Ben Wizner said in an interview Friday.

"I am actually kind of distressed by this," said Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Even though there are all these great quotes from inside the White House saying they support free speech....by calling YouTube from the White House, they were sending a message no matter how much they say we don't want them to take it down, when the White House calls and asks you to review it, it sends a message and has a certain chilling effect."

Google, for its part, has actually stood up to the White House on this one, and said that it won't pull the clip, though it had begun blocking the video in India and Indonesia, where they determined the video itself was illegal, and the company needed to comply with local laws.

Of course, all of this is unlikely to have much, if any, impact on the violence and anger. And that's part of the problem and the ridiculousness with arguing for censorship. It seems quite likely that a very large percentage of those involved in the mob violence to this haven't even seen the video themselves. Caving in to censorship "hints" from government doesn't actually hide the content or calm much anger. In fact, it's likely to just draw more attention to it. The video is despicable and the reaction to it is horrifying on a number of levels. The loss of life is massively upsetting, especially over something so stupid. So I can certainly understand the instinct to try to "do something," and to reach for the easiest target: censoring the video. But not only would it be completely ineffectual, it opens up a whole host of other problems. Dealing with hate speech by seeking to censor it almost always just encourages more hate speech (and even more idiotic violent reactions). It may be an "easy" thing to do, but it's no solution to deep-seeded problems. It just creates new problems.

Terrible and shameful message

Basically the White House is saying that if you are violent enough then the US government will reward you by censoring your opponents.

What this has to do with democracy is beyond me.

Why such violence is encouraged by the White House only in the case of Muslims is also beyond me.

Can anyone imagine Obama rewarding Fundamentalist Christian riots against abortion by censoring pro-abortion websites? This is what is happening here, just switch "Christian" with "Muslim".

I am happy that Google took a democratic stand and it was also correct in censoring the movie where the countries have deemed it illegal. But the attempt of this administration to try to censor speech in the US is simply shameful.

If the government can have something removed then you are implying that the government premeditated it in the first place. Which may sound odd to us but it's some times overlooked that some of the people responding to this clip are doing so after being under a system of government that controlled the media. It can be hard to separate out the idea of individual expression from government approval. When you muddy those waters by showing the government can in part sensor individual expression you make it harder to define the difference.

On top of that you are, as other's point out, that violence is a legitimate way to get change you want. "We do not negotiate with terrorist" becomes meaningless if you cave in to demands based on a violent reaction.

Caving in to censorship "hints" from government doesn't actually hide the content or calm much anger.

No but in the ass-backward countries where they are killing Americans, threatening our embassies and rioting they do not understand our free speech principles. Where they live, the government controls everything and could and would take action against an offensive video like this. The US government's attempt to "do something" may well be viewed as a good faith effort and help diffuse the masses of ignorant savages that threaten US lives abroad.

Re:

Or, as I suggested above, proof to those protesting that the US government must have permitted the video in the first place else how else would they have the power to remove it?

Explaining free speech to people who are devoid of it is hard enough as it is. You need to be clear about what is individual action and what is government standing and that they are different things. Seems to me that confusing things only allows the extremists to more easily paint America in a bad light.

Re:

The document in question, upon its first printed side, recited the first section of the Thirteenth Amendment, said that the idea embodied in it was violated by the Conscription Act, and that a conscript is little better than a [p51] convict. In impassioned language, it intimated that conscription was despotism in its worst form, and a monstrous wrong against humanity in the interest of Wall Street's chosen few. It said "Do not submit to intimidation," but in form, at least, confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed "Assert Your Rights." It stated reasons for alleging that anyone violated the Constitution when he refused to recognize "your right to assert your opposition to the draft," and went on

If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain.

It described the arguments on the other side as coming from cunning politicians and a mercenary capitalist press, and even silent consent to the conscription law as helping to support an infamous conspiracy. It denied the power to send our citizens away to foreign shores to shoot up the people of other lands, and added that words could not express the condemnation such cold-blooded ruthlessness deserves, &c., &c., winding up, "You must do your share to maintain, support and uphold the rights of the people of this country."

That document that Mr Justice Holmes is describing... well, that's the document that was a shout of “Fire!”.

I've found catrering to tantrums effective

Not.
Streisand effect anyone?
We have seen it all before; the book Satanic Verses, the Swedish cartoons, any time anyone suggests anything these 7th century children don't like, they form an angry mob and kill anything that moves.

Re:

1) they're not in a theater, or anywhere else, shouting anything. You have to go on youtube and look for it to find it.
2) A fire in a crowded building is a universal threat to everyone and would cause anyone to try exit the building as soon as possible. This film clip is not. A group of idiots reacting to it with violence is a group of idiots choosing to react violently, it's not a choice that every person would make in response to the film clip so it does not come under the same restrictions yelling "fire" does.
3) Because only certain Islamic idiots react violently to this and it would not cause such a reaction in others, the sole responsibility for the violence falls on the idiots who chose to react violently to it and not on anyone else. Doesn't matter if the clips makers were trying to push their buttons are not, they are responsible for their own choice of reaction.

Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

"any time anyone suggests anything these 7th century children don't like "

And it will never have anything to do with the western powers current and historic actions, overthrowing democracies, supporting brutal dictatorships, playing global power games that involve implementing sanctions that starve people of food and medical supplies or murdering, by bomb-strikes and drone-strikes or the illegal imprisonment and torture of those peoples.

I know for a certainty that under those conditions I wouldn't even be the tiniest bit tetchy.

Re:

Actually, I think you'll find a lot of countries that aren't "ass-backwards" places full of "ignorant savages" could and would have taken action against this sort of thing. Inciting a riot is not generally considered protected free speech in much of Europe, for example.

Re: Re:

If yelling fire in a crowded theater was allowed, we could thin the herd (gene pool wise). In the future there would only be rational people in the theater and it would be no big deal. I'm not suggesting killing all the stupid people, just removing all the warning labels and letting it sort itself.
If we did succeed in removing all the stupid and irrational people, religions would suffer a critical loss of members.

Re:

Re: Re:

A fire in a crowded building is a universal threat to everyone...

“But it is said, suppose that that was the tendency of this circular, it is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Two of the strongest expressions are said to be quoted respectively from well known public men. It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado. We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

While at first I was just pissed that again America the country was blamed for something one person did. I was 'these stupid violent extremists' just need to find their paradise and quit screwing up our world', but then I thought about it.

If you have grown up in a country where your life is controlled by the government, the TV you view is made by the government, then you would think that the US is responsible for the content of the video.

They are reacting based on a perception that is their reality, but not the actual reality. I know I get angry (and I am sure most Americans do) when we see some propaganda video put out by some foreign government that tells lies about America.

So in their eyes the video was made in America, by an American so therefore America made the video and all Americans must die.

Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

You're an idiot.

Islam was a major contributor to not only the sciences, but the arts. The groundwork laid down by Islamic scientists helped out not only such luminaries as Machiabelli, but also Copernicus, Newton, Dee and Harvey. The groundwork was laid down during the Crusades era of Eurasian history.

I highly suspect that the issue isn't so much one of religiosity, as one of blatant misinformation. There's no doubt that the troubles in Arabic embassies is misdirected and costly: the problem is that a government is basically saying "do as I say, not as I do" to a private company.

For the record, I think Youtube did the right thing initially, even if for the wrong reasons.

Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

Screw'em. We should have turned the mideast into a glass parking lot on 9-12. If it wasn't for the oil we might have. The world would have forgiven us by now, and we wouldn't have to put up with this crap.

Re: Re:

Re:

Go to Youtube search for "Innocence of Muslims movie trailer" the one you want is the 13:51 (13 mins 51 secs) version. Starts off with some dude in a brown hat, brown/khaki uniform with Tardis blue epaulettes. And then slowly gets worse and more hilariously badly acted .

Re: Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

Anyone would have thought that the U.S. has more than enough to seek forgiveness for.
While history and the actions of the west against them fuels anger and violence in the Middle East, it seems like ignorance, greed and cowardice fuels the violence of the U.S. today as much as it did with with slavery and the Indian wars and everything else between then and now.

Re: Re:

Though I agree that that case was a shameful episode in US court cases (of but a few..ok lots) I think he is trying to ascertain that if a shouting fire can get people killed and is therefore negligent it is not protected by your First Ammendment.

Most people don't understand though that for something to be negligent there needs to be an absolute duty, that duty to be breached, reasonable and foreseeable harm should of been known to occur and damage actually has occured (4 basic elements of neg).

In this instance none of those elements can be shown to exist since the film maker has no legal duty whatsoever (even the neighbour principle does not exist even here), therefore no duty breached, a reasonable person MIGHT of foreseen some type of harm, but there again is too much separation between the film maker, the viewers, the general public, and the protesters (not to mention the killers) for anything but de minimus to even exist

Therefore it IS protected under the US First amendment, and should be protected under the law of all common law countries. It is NOT hate speech any more than Passion of the Christ was.

Re: Re: Re:

When someone shouts "Fire!" in a crowded room with limited space and more than likely only one or two exits, people are going to get hurt, as people will panic and want to save their own lives, others be damned.
What does that have to do with someone putting a video on Youtube in America, and some Muslims half-way around the world seeing and then DECIDING to go on a violent rampage? There is no threat to them, they know there is no threat of fire or of other bodily harm. They see something that pisses them off, but choose to react in the worst way possible.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Bingo... as I say above Shouting Fire is all about a duty to others and comes under a form of negligence (though even that can be argued) and is absolutely foreseeable that harm might befall the average person in a crowded theatre since people tend to panic (fight or flight principle) unless told in a calm manner "please exit the building via the exits and do not concern yourself with this foggy atmosphere that smells of smoke or that person behind you that is combusting".

In the earlier world war, WWII, there seems little doubt that all sides did terrible things. What do you call strategic bombing which aims to “de-house” workers in the neighborhoods around industrial plants? Can you really say that the “Nips” had dispersed their industry to such an extent that every private home “had a drill press” manufacturing armaments? Those were the excuses for firebombing Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo.

Even two decades after the war, [General] LeMay felt the need to justify the site as in some sense industrial: “All the people living around the Hattori factory where they make shell fuses. That's the way they disperse their industry: little kids helping out [at home], wokrking all day, little bits of kids.” The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey notes frankly that 87.4 percent of the target zone was residential...

World War III was supposed to pick up where those earlier atrocities had left off. It was supposed to start right where the last one ended: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No real distinction between the industrial plant making weapons—and the homes where workers lived. No real distinction between the soldier at the front-line, the soldier in the rear, and Rosie-the-Riveter riveting B-29s. And if Rosie-the-Riveter is a legitmate military target, then what about the people who cook for Rosie, clean for Rosie, wash her clothes?

Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

Re: Interference

Not at all surprised.This government Sucks.I hate the Democrats but I have an even bigger hate for the GOP & The Tea Party Wackos.
Both of these Parties can go to hell.
I need to start either not Voting or just Voting for a 3RD Party.I am at the point of being Fedup with both of the Main Parties.

Re: Re: Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

Marked insightful. I too am a child of the cold war, I guess it pissed me off a bit, and made you more, well, insightful.
I understand the culture that permits / causes the unrest, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for it. they need to get over it, grow up & get on with life. I was always amazed at the Vietnam immigrants, who came here after the war. they had every right to be pissed, but they were bigger than that. They integrated into society, and became assets, I'm proud to have them as fellow Americans.

Re: Terrible and shameful message

website =! video.

Our speech has been censored for a very long time, but thanks for trying to blame it all on Obama. It is important in this campagin cycle to spread FUD.

Part of the reason, right or wrong, in asking them to look at the video might have been to keep those of small intelligence from equating all Muslims as terrorists shooting Americans over a video.
One has to understand that is not the case, that protestors protest but are not all murderous bastards. That the people who killed other people took advantage of the protests to provide them cover to carry out their plans, and it feeds the xenophobic jingoistic bloodlust in a certain demographic in the US which in turn leads to more hate and us vs them mentality which benefits the people selling them weapons.

Its nice you compared the Muslims with the Christians, let us not forget who shoots doctors and bombs medical clinics because their holy words are more important than the law.

Intolerance. That's the fuel for the violence not the video. The video is but a product of the intolerance. Were we a truly evolved and civilized society this would be laughed off and discredited. But no, we are creating massive international issues over a piece of shit that isn't worth our time.

I say it, if God/Allah/Whoever feels bad about it let HIM zap/fry/torture-with-DH-nudie-pics the idiot who created it. Does it diminish your faith? No. Does it in any way present the truth? No. Then why bother? (or rather maybe it does present part of the truth and that's why you feel so annoyed by it?). Food for thought.

Re:

The intolerance is on both sides here and it truly is telling.

People are pretending that people who were upset and protested are the ones killing people.
They refuse to accept that while some protested, there was a group who killed people only using the protestors as cover.

So many people screaming how everyone over there is calling for murder because they were upset and protested. The politics of us vs them is destroying the world, it plays well in the US because you can assign blame to someone else and then feel smug in your intolerance having a channel that is acceptable.

There were people who protested, to pretend they shouldn't means we should have shown up in force and shot every protestor at Penn State when the sex crimes were revealed. To decry protesters makes a mockery of the history of civil rights in the US.

There were people who executed a planned attack to murder people, they are murderers who used the events as cover not as a justification for them. They might have even found the video in advance and pointed people at it to set the protests in motion. 24 hours of video uploaded every minute or less to YouTube... and somehow they found this 1 video on Sept 11... ummm yeah.

Until people can separate these 2 very distinct things, we are going to have the same bullshit over and over.

Re: Re: Interference

hmmm... Welcome to the 3rd party, but I should point out (at least in my part of the country) the "Tea Party" people you cant seem to stand are supporting a large percentage of 3rd party candidates (the main thought is the other 2 party's have made a dogs breakfast out of the whole thing, these guys may or may not be better, but lets try them at lower levels and see what happens)....
OWS is doing the same thing (and making some strange fundraising events)...

Re: Re: Terrible and shameful message

There are terrorists on both sides IMHO. The people who made the film and the people who looked to kill over their outrage to the film. One side is just looking to instigate things on the other side and the other side is happy to oblige. I say we take both sides, lock them up in a room, and late nature take it's course.

Re: Re:

Well that gets a 'funny' vote, most hilariously inaccurate statement I've read all week.

If it was changed to 'the only person who can issue a valid DMCA' then it would be accurate with regards to what the law says, though most certainly not accurate with regards to how it's actually treated.

Re: Re: Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

Re: Re: Terrible and shameful message

Nope. If Obama had tried to get Google to censor the movie prior to the shootings, that would be a different story.

Or if Obama had tried to get Google to censor material offensive to a religion that doesn't go apeshit and murder diplomats, that would be a different story.

But in reality: Nope, that didn't happen. This just shows that if you want the most powerful man in the most powerful country in the world to take you seriously,

If you're going to try and deflect criticism of the Religion Of Peace Via Murder by bringing up other religious misdeeds, then answer the original question: If a Christian bombs an abortion clinic and claims it was in retaliation to a pro-abortion YouTube video, should the president contact Google and ask them to censor that video?

Re: Re: Re: Terrible and shameful message

*But in reality: Nope, that didn't happen. This just shows that if you want the most powerful man in the most powerful country in the world to take you seriously, you've got to kill innocent and unrelated people.

Re: Re: Terrible and shameful message

This is more of Obama's apologies to terrorist. The US didn't use to negotiate with terrorists but now we apologize to them.
But people will probably put this guy back in office.

1) Who apologized?
The White House stated it's not responsible for the video (true) and that the President finds it reprehensible. (also true).
2) Who's "negotiating with terrorists"?
Did I miss a press release?

Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

"And it will never have anything to do with the western powers current and historic actions, overthrowing democracies, supporting brutal dictatorships, playing global power games that involve implementing sanctions that starve people of food and medical supplies or murdering, by bomb-strikes and drone-strikes or the illegal imprisonment and torture of those peoples."

Their own people like Saddam, Ghadaffi, and Ahmadinejad DON'T do that to selected political or ethnic groups within their own borders?
Considering we had to help them get rid of the first two, what does that say about them as a society?

Proposals included use of these weapons against the United States. They proposed using balloon bombs to carry disease to America and they had a plan in the summer of 1945 to use kamikaze pilots to dump plague infected fleas on San Diego.

Unit 731 (731部隊 Nana-san-ichi butai?, Chinese: 731部队) was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) and World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japanese personnel. Unit 731 was based at the Pingfang district of Harbin, the largest city in the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo (now Northeast China).

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Hiroshima was the head quarters of the JIA biological war far program.

Nagasaki was an accident of sorts it only being the manufacturing point for the biological warfare equipment.

Kokura, the city that was spared at Nagasaki demise, was the assembly point for the biological war fair weapons.

Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

"And it will never have anything to do with the western powers current and historic actions, overthrowing democracies, supporting brutal dictatorships, playing global power games that involve implementing sanctions that starve people of food and medical supplies or murdering, by bomb-strikes and drone-strikes or the illegal imprisonment and torture of those peoples.
I know for a certainty that under those conditions I wouldn't even be the tiniest bit tetchy."

Why does that remind me of this...
Allied soldiers stopped a car in Baghdad.
Opening the trunk they found an Iraqi bound and gagged.
They demanded the Iraqi driver explain.
"His family kidnapped and tortured my family, so I grabbed him, and now I'm going to torture him!"
The soldiers asked the driver when his relatives were kidnapped.
He responded "80 years ago!"

Re: Re: Re: Interference

Don't worry about people like him. They've been led to believe (by the media they claim to despise) that the Tea party is
a) monolithic
b) mostly a front for racism and
c) mostly made up of stupid rednecks.

Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

"Islam was a major contributor to not only the sciences, but the arts. The groundwork laid down by Islamic scientists helped out not only such luminaries as Machiabelli, but also Copernicus, Newton, Dee and Harvey. The groundwork was laid down during the Crusades era of Eurasian history."

Societies deteriorate.
The Greeks and Romans of ancient times would be horrified by their descendants.
I suspect the original Muslims would be equally-shocked by their present-day counterparts.

Re:

It's actually more like discussing theater fire safety and having people riot.

The video depicts the life of Mohammed based on Muslim sources. According to these sources, he was violent and married a nine-year-old as a 51-year-old. Muslims typically find fault with any depiction of Mohammed whatsoever, but it's not as if the movie's writers made up hateful things to attack him as the media is portraying. These things are well-known facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

Now, I haven't seen the whole movie, but the short part I viewed seemed similar to other low-budget Bible films.

Re: Re:

Re:

No but in the ass-backward countries where they are killing Americans, threatening our embassies and rioting they do not understand our free speech principles.

Even if this absurdly ignorant description were even remotely accurate, you think the way to respond to them not understanding our free speech principles is to ignore our free speech principles?

Where they live, the government controls everything and could and would take action against an offensive video like this. The US government's attempt to "do something" may well be viewed as a good faith effort and help diffuse the masses of ignorant savages that threaten US lives abroad.

I see. So, the way to stand up for America is to throw away our principles. Sorry, but that's ridiculous and offensive.

Doesn't Google take down other offensive videos?

Sites like Google and Facebook have screened what is allowed and isn't allowed, so how is asking Google to take down this video any different? What's been the status of neo-Nazi and other hate crime videos? I haven't researched it.

Re:

It's actually more like discussing theater fire safety and having people riot.

The video depicts the life of Mohammed based on Muslim sources. According to these sources, he was violent and married a nine-year-old as a 51-year-old. Muslims typically find fault with any depiction of Mohammed whatsoever, but it's not as if the movie's writers made up hateful things to attack him as the media is portraying. These things are well-known facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

Now, I haven't seen the whole movie, but the short part I viewed seemed similar to other low-budget Bible films.

In the days leading up to the attack on the embassy many attacks were made on those who have helped us over the last 11 years.
Peaceful protesters do not march with Kalashnikov's and RPG7's.
These attacks were not because of a stupid video clip.
These attacks were a direct result of Carteresq like diplomacy.
The reason Americans died was because our Marines did not have any of that ammo the Federal Government has been buying by the billions of rounds over the last 2 years.

So.. people protesting around the Middle East claim they are doing so because this offensive video originated in the US and the government has done nothing to stop it. So the government makes it clear that it is not in favour of the video, and makes a gesture towards google which DOES NOT EQUATE TO CENSORSHIP, no matter how much you people keep saying it. Same thing hapenned with nutjob terry jones and his koran burning. What would you people rather? That Obama does nothing to alleviate the situation? Why not declare war on Islam while you're at it, see how far that gets you.

Re: Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

"Considering we had to help them get rid of the first two, what does that say about them as a society?"

Helped them get rid of? Do you ever think, or are you really as ignorant of history as that statement makes you appear.
Saddam was in power in Iraq as he took over the Ba'ath party, the Ba'ath party was in power as a result of a CIA coup, in fact it took 2 CIA sponsored coups to give power to the Ba'ath party. And what was the reason for the US to change who ran Iraq, the usual reason, fear, just as in Iran, they leaned too far to the left for you.

At least with Libya, for once the US didn't actually put a dictator in power, but the prime reason the US hated Ghadaffi so much was that he was the first to make you pay more for oil, leading to the oil crisis in the 70's. You never forgave him for that. The wars and oppression were more par for the course, but getting a good price for his country's resources that put him on the forever enemy list.

"Their own people like Saddam, Ghadaffi, and Ahmadinejad DON'T do that to selected political or ethnic groups within their own borders?"
Key there, being their own people.
Individuals or small groups acting in their own interests not a foreign power acting in it's own interest.

If you as an Iraqi suffer under Saddam, you don't hate all Iraqis, although if you are aware that he is in power due to US activity, then you might hate the U.S. for creating the situation.
If you as a Libyan suffer under Ghadaffi, then you will hate Ghadaffi, not all Libyans.
If you as an Iranian, hate Ahmadinejad, you will hate Ahmadinejad, not all Iranians, although if you remember that the current regime came to power after a revolution to overthrow a previous brutal dictator who the CIA had put in power having overthrown a democratically elected government, you might also hate the U.S. for again, creating the situation.

Re: Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

I don't know why that reminds you of the other.
One has been going on constantly for many decades and continues to this day and into the future, with the US being the prime mover for most of the last 60 years, that story was 2 events separated in time by generations.
What comparison do you see?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

Also a clever debating tactic; clearly proving that you are yourself an Idiot while inferring the opponent is an Idiot.
What is next do we invoke Godwins Law?
I'll do it.... Both AC and eejit are Nazis

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

What will a right wing group do if they don't have to face any consequences, they'll make a video intended to inflame the Muslim world.
What will an administration that does have to face the consequences do, they'll want the video hidden, you know, like the Abu Ghraib ones.

Re: Re:

Or, as I suggested above, proof to those protesting that the US government must have permitted the video in the first place else how else would they have the power to remove it?

Explaining free speech to people who are devoid of it is hard enough as it is. You need to be clear about what is individual action and what is government standing and that they are different things. Seems to me that confusing things only allows the extremists to more easily paint America in a bad light.

Tim, I don't think that the White House asking Google to review whether this video violates its service terms would be interpreted by anyone as an ability to remove the video or prevent it to begin with. I really do think that it's an opportunity for a government to make a gesture that might reinforce its statements condemning the hateful use of an individual's free speech right.

Re: Re: Google should have caved

Are you serious?

Yes.

It would depend on how it got spun in the media, of course. But if Mr Obama was seen as using his super-duper commander-in-chief powers to over-ride the first amendment, then I think that might be enough to tip the electorate's current mood into taking away those super-duper commander-in-chief powers.

Re:

Re: Re: Re: Google should have caved

Personally, I think the electorate cares more about job creation, the overall economy, the deficit, taxes, foreign policy, Medicare, Social Security, energy policy and a couple of hundred other things ahead of the WH asking Google to review the propriety of continuing to host a video that inflamed the murders of Americans and riots outside the gates of our embassies around the world.

And what you said implies that those to whom this is the #1 election issue (both of them) think that Romney (or R-Money as he's also known in the hip-hop world) would be someone more aligned with their First Amendment concerns.

I will say you've won the first round of Hyperbole Derby today, though.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Terrible and shameful message

Sadly these people were not killed in the United States, so the fact that we have free speech has what bearing on this?

You keep painting everyone who was upset as a killer, rather than accept the fact that not everyone who protested killed or tried to kill anyone.

So other than mileage against the President your trying to get out of this, and your absolute failure understand multiple people are Muslim, but not all of them kill people did you have a real point to make?

Re:

Why do we keep putting the masses of ignorant savages out there ahead of the home grown ones?

Ass-backward countries that have existed much longer than the US, and were doing just fine until some ignorant ass-backwards savages from an upstart country with nuclear weapons decided they knew what was best for everyone else and made it happen no matter the cost to the people of those countries or how many were killed by the "friendly" regimes placed into power so we could get a good price on oil.

Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

Re: Re: Re:

There are so many people who think all Muslims are out on the streets calling for Americans to be murdered. They can not even think of them as people just Muslims.

These are the same people who do not understand why some of those damn foreigners hate Americans, we have people wasting food in "contests" find the tickets buried in the pudding, jello wrestling, contests glorifying cramming yourself with as much food as possible and they do not understand the simple fact to people who might not eats for days the waste of that much food might be considered as something wrong.

If I say something offensive about the Pope, someone will get offended and start a war of words. Almost like they are protesting what I said.

But then it might have to do with people assuming everyone everywhere on the globe has the exact same life as themselves. They fail to understand cultures are different, hence the name "Ugly Americans" an oafish caricature of Americans that hits close to home. Just speak louder if they don't understand English. Don't ask how they do things, do it like you always do it. Assume they all behave just like you do at home.

Fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.'

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Terrible and shameful message

What bearing? The bearing is that the president is attempting to squelch free speech in this country because murders were committed in another country as a reaction to a movie trailer.

I did not paint everyone who was upset as a killer. I painted everyone who was upset and decided to kill people because of it as a killer. Because guess what numbnuts? They are killers. Murderers. Savages. They broke into an embassy and murdered diplomats who had nothing to do with the movie they were angry about. They're not even following their religion by doing that - it's outright murder and you're here excusing it. No one gives a shit about the protestors who didn't murder people. Well, except the protestors who broke into other embassies and set them on fire and destroyed things.

And yet you're here saying that because murderous savages in other countries don't have respect for life, property or diplomatic sovereignty, we should just fold up our constitutional rights in this country? We should just do what they want? We should bow and scrape and apologize?

When there were no murders, there was no calls by the White House to take down the movie. Then there were murders. Now there are calls by the White House to take down the movie. THAT is the problem. It tells the murdering savages that they were right. They get what they want when they commit atrocities. It makes the murdering savages look like heroes to the people who are "just upset". It tells other crazy people all over the world that if they want their views respected, they need to some kill some people first.

Let's think about the roles being reversed. In this country, the way women are treated in many Islamic countries is pretty offensive to some people. Do you think that if some radical feminists broke into the Saudi embassy and murdered their ambassador, that the world should then say "While we condemn violence like this, we also really want to point out that the way the Saudis treat women is very offensive and we don't want to see any more of that".

Re: Re: Re: Terrible and shameful message

there is a question did the people who made the film specifically do it to hopefully incite middle east wide riots, or did they do it to show what they think of the muslim religion. if it was the first you might be able to make that claim, with the second you can not.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

intentionally starting a riot is a crime, saying something that could conceivably cause a riot is not. i could say taco bell sucks, and a bunch of people could start rioting somewhere because of it. does not mean i should be arrested.

Re: Doesn't Google take down other offensive videos?

Cultures and definitions of freedom collide

Cultural Clash Fuels Muslims Raging at Film - NYTimes.com: “We want these countries to understand that they need to take into consideration the people, and not just the governments,” said Ismail Mohamed, 42, a religious scholar who once was an imam in Germany. “We don’t think that depictions of the prophets are freedom of expression. We think it is an offense against our rights,” he said, adding, “The West has to understand the ideology of the people.”

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Terrible and shameful message

The President, can you show me the memo with his name on it?
Can you show me the line where it says take this down now?
Can you show me where I excused murder?
Can you show me where anyone in power knew about this video before the world went sideways?
Can you for a moment think its not bowing and scraping, or would that screw with your narrative?
Can you pick a word besides savages or are you just a racist happy to have a cause?

Do you think if some religious freaks bombed a clinic because they wanted a vote in what a woman does with her uterus we should condemn everyone of that religion?

Or does this only work because you think we should declare war on all of Islam over the actions of a few people who set out to murder Americans?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hateful or not, it's still protected speech in the US. The government hasn't the right or authority to stop it.

I get that. But a request or suggestion is not an order. It's a tough issue. I'm just suggesting that it is not a bad thing to try to diffuse the inflamed passions of the rioters. Right now, the situation is being diffused by water cannons and tear gas at the request/suggestion of the State Department. I doubt that approach is going to make anyone feel better.

Re: Re: Re:

True?

I would like to know,from a purely factual standpoint, if what is in the video is true by today's standards? So far, i haven't seen anybody come forward and say it's factually incorrect, therefore it's offensive.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Terrible and shameful message

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

Reposted from earlier:
"If a Christian bombs an abortion clinic and claims it was in retaliation to a pro-abortion YouTube video, should the president contact Google and ask them to censor that video?"

"If a radical feminist group breaks into the Saudi embassy and murders their ambassador because they object to the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia, should the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia be a part of the response to condemning the murder?"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Terrible and shameful message

Huh...
#1 seems unlikely as there are not pro-abortion videos. The President did not ask Google to censor the video. So your question falls apart.

#2 The action should be condemned. A discussion of the reasons it happened seems like it should be viable. To make your question actually apply to the situation at hand they would have had to break into the embassy while other women were protesting the treatment of women.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interference

Yeah and to overlook the tea party founding darling who was screaming no socialism was getting Social Security/Disability payments while claiming that system was horrible.
That Tea Party supporters scream no socialism, and hands off my Social Security and Medicare.
That the Koch's have put alot of money into it.

The list goes on and on.

Oh and don't forget the Tea Party supporter who curb stomped someone with the audacity to protest a candidate.

Re: True?

I agree with not pulling it, but...

I agree with the decision to not pull the video here in the US, but there is one other thing to think about when trying to understand why Youtube did this elsewhere, and I think it's a key point that often gets lost upon those of us who live in places with no (or at least minimal) censorship.

The people of Egypt have censorship, as do the citizens of Libya, and frankly most of the middle east. It is widespread, it is pervasive, and it is absolute. This means that, by definition, any video that is allowed to air in these countries and originates from them has a certain implicit amount of government approval. This isn't to say that, in some "looser" censorship states, objectionable material isn't occasionally allowed to be released, but it is rare.

That said, a large amount of this rage is a result not so much of the video itself, as a misunderstanding by many people that the video was somehow sponsored by the US government. To a US citizen, the very idea is crazy - and even more so after seeing the thing. (Even atomic-era PSAs had better production value than this drivel...) However, in countries where censorship is pervasive, the mere fact that one can view a video at all carries with it an implicit level of, if not endorsement, at least acknowledgement that the media in question is considered to be non-objectionable.

This is really the crux of the problem, and in a way, it says more about the governments of the countries where the outrage erupted than anything else. The fact that friendly foreign nationals are being murdered in cold blood on what is supposed to be sovereign US territory is less a statement about the video or even the asswipes who made it, and more a statement about the dangers of censorship itself. That is, once it becomes "the norm" then anything that remains uncensored has an automatic "seal of approval" in the minds of viewers. This makes it considerably worse when a would-be censored video slips by and winds up in the wild.

In short, the concept of having no censorship at all is so foreign to these people, they were left with no plausible alternative (mentally) except to assume that the mere existence of the video meant it was sanctioned by the host country's government. That's the true problem here.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Terrible and shameful message

New PC, so I probably have a different icon.

Seems unlikely? How about this one: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fineline/vera_drake/
And did you not read the article? Way to avoid the question. The president's office asked Google to "strongly reconsider if the video didn't violate their policies". If you want to interpret that as "not asking them to censor" then fine, keep your blinders on.

The action should be condemned. Great. I'm glad we've gotten you to say that we should condemn murder. The situation is at hand is that murder occurred and they're trying to justify it by saying they were offended - and the leaders of the world or their offices responded by acknowledging their offended-ness.

Now I'll answer your questions.

No, the president didn't order the takedown. He encouraged Google to take it down. Read the article. I'm not going to relink things that are posted above.

I feel you are defending the perpetrators of this crime by deflecting the discussion from the murderers to the other protesters. To me that sounds like an excuse. I'll retract my statement and apologize if you can honestly say this:

These murders were completely unjustified and even if the ambassador himself was publicly mocking Mohammad, the blame would still lie entirely on the murderers

The embassy posted a comment on its webpage the day before the attacks, attempting to distance themselves from the film. Therefore, your point about no one knowing about it is wrong.

If you think that responding to atrocities by doing the thing that those committing the atrocities want you to do is not bowing and scraping, then I'm sorry but you're wrong.

Notice I have not directed one word toward the protestors who did not commit crimes. The people who did commit the crimes are the savages. Their response to things they don't like is to breach a diplomatic embassy and murder the diplomats. That is savage, and they are savages. Throwing up the racism smokescreen to deflect from them is disingenuous.

No, I don't think we should condemn all Christians if a Christian bombs an abortion clinic. I also don't think we should condemn all Muslims because some commit murder. However, we should ostracize everyone of any religion who excuses murder because they're offended. If a Christian hears about an abortion clinic bombing and says "yeah, they deserved that" then we should condemn them. If Christians protesting at an abortion clinic witness one of their people kill an abortion doctor and do nothing about it, we should condemn those Christians. The exact same thing goes for Muslims.

No one's calling for war against Islam. I've never said that. Mike never said that. No one on this thread has brought it up but you. Are you really afraid that might happen?

This kind of thing does lower my opinion of Islam, less because the murders committed the murder, but more because the people present did nothing to stop it, and the men who did this remain at large.

However, all of this is besides the point. The protesters in this case don't matter to me. At all. They're free to peacefully protest all they want. What bothers me is that there's this call to stop offending Islam because we're afraid more crazies will do more crazy things. And this is not because I'm all for offending religious people - I'm religious and I don't like it when my religion is offended either. It's because crazy people are never satisfied. You cannot capitulate to their demands, because they will just make new ones.

I have a subreddit thy allows people to report instances of search engine censorship which is when a search engine covertly censor web pages because of its political social or economic content. The link can be reached by clicking my username.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Terrible and shameful message

You feel... so you have no proof and haven't bothered for a minute to consider that I am appalled by the murders and appalled by the people who are lumping everyone protesting into the same pile with the killers.

With the billions we spend on spying on our own citizens it is amazing we were unaware of the video beforehand. While they did try to distance themselves from the video that could have been a smart move trying to avoid the misunderstanding we have every time one of these videos designed to incite people incites people.

Again they asked them to look, not to take it down. Sometimes a token gesture is a token gesture. Sometimes you do something to try and stop things from getting completely out of control.

And yet savages are what everyone in the middle east has been called multiple times in this thread. I have a problem with people trying to indict everyone in the middle east for the crimes a few committed.

Funny we never arrested those found giving care and aid to abortion bombers/snipers hiding in the mountains. Because pissing off the Christian powerbase in this country is dangerous. We have to be careful not to offend them.

I'm sorry did you miss the comment about turning the middle east into a sheet of glass?

So because people present who were unarmed ran instead of confronting the murderers and being shot themselves, they are bad people? Because talking to the authorities will get them murdered as well.

I'm not religious and I get offended when religious people decide their view of the world needs to be imposed on me. I'm offended that we can't have medical care for women who have been raped because some religious types don't want them to. I'm offended that women having to make a tough decision are screamed at by religious types making the day that much more fun for them. I'm offended that their screams of no tax dollars for this or that take precedence over other peoples demands their tax dollars not be spent a certain way too. And yes it does look like you can't make the crazy people happy because they demand more rights and laws to enshrine their religious beliefs into law for everyone.

A video was made, they were within their rights to do it.
The video pissed off many people who went out and protested, they were within their rights to do it.
A group who obviously organized an attack, used this as cover for murder.
Given our "amazing" history in the Middle East I do not think it is kowtowing to them to make gestures and try to explain to people that things are different in America than they are in the Middle East. Trying to calm emotions rather than letting rhetoric rule the day.

Re: Re: Cultures and definitions of freedom collide

Just let anyone fill in any blank they like and we can start letting angry mobs in remote countries (and on main street USA) prune the tree of liberty into a twig of regression.

If it weren't for oil and Israel, we probably wouldn't be involved in Middle Eastern politics nearly as much as we are. Trying to get them to see the world the way we see it may not be in the cards right now. Democracy does not necessarily mean a country's citizens will embrace our world view.

Like it or not, the rest of the world is not necessarily going to embrace American values and we don't have it in our budget or wherewithal to force them to do so. So understanding other cultures probably is going to be necessary to find some diplomatic solutions.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've found catrering to tantrums effective

Huh?

Let's say the Soviets had initiated a strategic exchange by taking out an office building in New York, killing 3,000 civilians.

We would respond. New York is not quite comparable to Moscow, because Moscow is the capital. Our capital is not our most populous city. Anyhow, it doesn't really matter which city you pick, because a simple "tit-for-tat" response in this scenario is just stupid. Instead, the US would respond by taking out military targets, perhaps missile launch sites.

Unfortunately, missile launch sites are not exactly comparable to a civilian target in our most populous city. God knows what the Soviets would do next... they were probably drunk when they started this exchange.

You have to understand the rules:

• Rule 1: It is better for both players if a strategic exchange does not occur.

• Rule 2: If a strategic exchange is inevitable, then the military advantage goes to the player who strikes first.

just another one sided article

Would the white house (or even the whole legal system) even allow a video that says anything against holocaust, or speaks in favor of the well known terrorist groups etc. If any such video was ever posted on youtube, the government wouldn't hesitate a second to ask youtube to take the video down...and people like you and many others will greet that as a well justified and correct action? Does that not qualify as freedom of speech as well??
you only speak out of ignorance when you pretend to think that we have freedom to go ahead and say whatever we want to say on youtube. There are things that are not legal, there are things that are not appropriate, and there are topics that only create hatred and pain - such videos are not allowed, yet no one (including you!) would call that a suppression of free speech, would you?

Innocence of Muslims video takedown request

Begin with: Although we have freedom of speech, certain types of speech are not protected. For example, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. In this case, the speech is both yelling FIRE and setting FIRE. Free speech does not include purely malicious speech like this.

As I recall, you were in support of a "glass parking lot" and I responded that it was a bit excessive. It was pointed out that in doing so access to the vast oil reserves would be much more difficult - the implication was that radioactivity would cause these problems. Perhaps you failed to catch the inference. Oh well. Because it seems you have doubled down on the stupid rhetoric about Russia. What a bunch of BS

Enrico Fermi made similar estimates. George Uhlenbeck, who shared an office with him in Pupin Hall, was there one day to overhear him. Fermi was standing at his panoramic office window high in the physics tower looking down the gray winter length of Manhattan Island, its streets alive as always with vendors and taxis and crowds. He cupped his hands as if he were holding a ball. “A little bomb like that,” he said simply, for once not lightly mocking, ”and it would all disappear.”